9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by M/s. S.S. Infratech resulting into the show payment on amount of Rs. Rs.15,00,831.81/- as was found by the department to be outstanding as on 31.03.2017. It was the appellant s burden to prove that the retained amount was not released for want of due certification of the satisfaction by the architect. In absence thereof, the amount retained is rightly held to have been wrongly retained. There are no reason to differ from these findings otherwise also the appellant has opted to remain absent and has opted to not to produce any evidence to prove that the payment has been retained in furtherance of the agreement between the appellant and M/s. S.S. Infratech. The order under challenge is hereby upheld - Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appropriate penalties were also proposed to be imposed upon the appellant. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide the Order-in-Original bearing No. 26/2020- 21 dated 15.12.2020. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the Order-in-Appeal No. 20/2022 dated 08.02.2022. 1.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant was before this Tribunal. However, after filing the appeal, not even for once, the appellant had appeared before this Tribunal. It is perused from the record that the appellant as well as his Authorized Representative were duly served about the dates of hearing. The service report is also on record but still the appellant opted to remain absent. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, last opportunity was warned to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had received the construction services from M/s. S.S. Infratech. There was an agreement dated 22.09.2015 between the appellant and the said M/s. S.S. Infratect, according to which it was agreed that the payment shall be made each constructed floor wise after the due certification of satisfaction by the architect. The security deposit at the rate of 5% of the amount of each demand/bill was agreed to be retained by the appellant, however, to be released after the completion of the work. From the appeal memo itself it is observed that the amount as was retained in the name of security was admittedly not released to M/s. S.S. Infratech. Resultantly, it is very much apparent on record that the appellant has failed to make the full payment again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
